Pokemon Which aspects characterise Dragon-type Pokémon?

[Ohman177]

Let's keep the discussion civil, guys. You can criticize each others' arguments without being rude. d:

In Flygon's case, I think that they wanted two types of dragonfly Pokemon - one family to be faithful to real-life dragonflies (Yanma/Yanmega), and one to use the "dragon" part of the dragonfly's name.
(Even though antlions and dragonflies aren't actually the same thing...)
That's the only way I can make sense of it.

Or you could use my theory. Ehh.... eh.... eh... *crickets chirping*

Lol anyway bottom line is ant lion doesn't equal dragonfly and dragonfly doesn't equal dragon so by the TRANSITIVE PROPERTY OF EQUALITY, WHAT WHAT I'M USING MATH IN REAL LIFE GUYS, ant lion does not equal dragon.
Anyway, let's just keep talking about what constitutes a dragon without flygon being in it, for argument's sake.

 

[zappy800]

Let's keep the discussion civil, guys. You can criticize each others' arguments without being rude. d:

In Flygon's case, I think that they wanted two types of dragonfly Pokemon - one family to be faithful to real-life dragonflies (Yanma/Yanmega), and one to use the "dragon" part of the dragonfly's name.
(Even though antlions and dragonflies aren't actually the same thing...)
That's the only way I can make sense of it.

Or you could use my theory. Ehh.... eh.... eh... *crickets chirping*

Lol anyway bottom line is ant lion doesn't equal dragonfly and dragonfly doesn't equal dragon so by the TRANSITIVE PROPERTY OF EQUALITY, WHAT WHAT I'M USING MATH IN REAL LIFE GUYS, ant lion does not equal dragon.
Anyway, let's just keep talking about what constitutes a dragon without flygon being in it, for argument's sake.

Probably a good idea. Now who else thinks it is weird that correct me if im wrong dratini and dragonair are the only serpent dragons.

Edit: Oops forgot rayquaza man my favorite dragon legendary -_- I am not counting Giratina-O

 

[King Xerneas]

I'd just like to say that I don't think you guys will get anywhere if you count flygon. He is in my opinion the only obvious mess up on GF's part. They got too hung up on the word "DRAGONfly" even though it's technically a completely different animal from the ant lion. I think it probably had something to do with bad english and not enough research. But it was too late to change the trapinch line because a final form changing has simply never happened ever.
For those still confused I will now describe what I think was going on in the mind of the unknown designer:
"Hmm ok I need an antlion. Easy enough, easy enough. I'll probably make the line Ground/Bug. Yeah Ground/Bug will make sense. Basic form, done. Ok ok, says here that they change once they grow into this thing with wings. Ok ok cool, I'll give that levitate. Now what.... S*it I was told to make a three stage pokemon based off the ant lion. Where do I go from here.... gahhh.... OH WAIT. THIS SAYS THAT ANOTHER WORD FOR ANT LION IS DRAGONFLY! Perfect! I'll just integrate in some dragon features! But wait.... now I have a line of Ground/Bug pokemon that randomly develop dragon features. What to do! I don't have time to split this into 2 different lines. OH I KNOW! I'll replace the whole line's Bug type with the Dragon type so it seems like that was my intention all along! It was going to just be the secondary type any way so no big deal!"
As you can see the terrible atrocity occurred when he wondered onto the website that either said Dragonfly is another word for ant lion or that dragonflies are similar and read it incorrectly.
While that's all speculation, it makes sense and is the only explanation I can think of. So just think of Dragons as anything that looks reptilian, has a reptilian/dragon name (legit one, not like DRAGONfly lol), and/or is based off of/inspired by some kind of reptile/dragon (real or fake). Just leave flygon out of it.

It's not the first time Gamefreak merged multiple creatures into one Pokemon. Lets look at Garchomp. It has elements of both European dragons and sharks. Maybe GF wanted to incorporate ant lions, dragonflies and dragons in flygon's design . But, personally I feel like GF could've gone a different direction in typing for that family. Trapinch could've been Bug/Ground, Vibrava Bug/Ground or Bug/Dragon, and Flygon would've been Bug/Dragon. I feel like this typing would've made it being a dragon type more acceptable.

 

[Ohman177]

I'd just like to say that I don't think you guys will get anywhere if you count flygon. He is in my opinion the only obvious mess up on GF's part. They got too hung up on the word "DRAGONfly" even though it's technically a completely different animal from the ant lion. I think it probably had something to do with bad english and not enough research. But it was too late to change the trapinch line because a final form changing has simply never happened ever.
For those still confused I will now describe what I think was going on in the mind of the unknown designer:
"Hmm ok I need an antlion. Easy enough, easy enough. I'll probably make the line Ground/Bug. Yeah Ground/Bug will make sense. Basic form, done. Ok ok, says here that they change once they grow into this thing with wings. Ok ok cool, I'll give that levitate. Now what.... S*it I was told to make a three stage pokemon based off the ant lion. Where do I go from here.... gahhh.... OH WAIT. THIS SAYS THAT ANOTHER WORD FOR ANT LION IS DRAGONFLY! Perfect! I'll just integrate in some dragon features! But wait.... now I have a line of Ground/Bug pokemon that randomly develop dragon features. What to do! I don't have time to split this into 2 different lines. OH I KNOW! I'll replace the whole line's Bug type with the Dragon type so it seems like that was my intention all along! It was going to just be the secondary type any way so no big deal!"
As you can see the terrible atrocity occurred when he wondered onto the website that either said Dragonfly is another word for ant lion or that dragonflies are similar and read it incorrectly.
While that's all speculation, it makes sense and is the only explanation I can think of. So just think of Dragons as anything that looks reptilian, has a reptilian/dragon name (legit one, not like DRAGONfly lol), and/or is based off of/inspired by some kind of reptile/dragon (real or fake). Just leave flygon out of it.

It's not the first time Gamefreak merged multiple creatures into one Pokemon. Lets look at Garchomp. It has elements of both European dragons and sharks. Maybe GF wanted to incorporate ant lions, dragonflies and dragons in flygon's design . But, personally I feel like GF could've gone a different direction in typing for that family. Trapinch could've been Bug/Ground, Vibrava Bug/Ground or Bug/Dragon, and Flygon would've been Bug/Dragon. I feel like this typing would've made it being a dragon type more acceptable.

My main point was to show that it's too confusing to consider as a factor. But I don't think we should talk about it anymore. It's off topic and I've apparently been doing that too much haha.

 

[professorlight]

Gible, gabite and garchomp are land sharks, a real type of fictional creature; they are sharks... that swim on land. Y' know, just in case you thought you were safe.
Now, I don't know why the hell can garchomp fly, but it's pretty cool, so I don't care.

Actually, the discussion about flygon happened in at least three more threads, so I guess, by now, you could say that statistically, any thread where flygon's typing is discussed, as long as it's in the general pokemon discussion, it's on topic.

 

[Mitja]

Wait, even though the basis for Trapinch-line are antlions, Flygon looks draconic enough, I thought. You guys actually think it does not? Not its basis, its actual design. (Debates about whether stuff like Ampharos deserves the type I understand, and even Vibrava looking out of place with its clearly insectid design, but Flygon? Looks as dragon-like as it gets I thought)

My point I guess is, just because something is based off something real, doesn't mean it has to go through with it to the end. But that's kinda obvious with fish turning to octopuses etc.

 

[Blob55]

So far there only 10 non-legendary fully-evolved Dragon types, including Noivern and I personally think Dragon types will be a bit underpowered in XY, because there seem to be a lot of confirmed Fairy types already and unless there are no new Ice types this gen, I don't think Dragon types will be as big as they were before.
Pretty much like what happened to Psychic types in gen 2.

Anyway, I've done a list of which aspects characterise all types:
Bug - Usually Arthropods.
Dark - Pokémon associated with being evil, sneaky or bossy.
Dragon - Typically mythological lizards and Dinosaurs. Out of all the rare types, it has one of the biggest variety of Classes (like Fish and Mammals).
Electric - Pure and primary Electric types tend to be well known Mammals or machines.
Fighting - Fighting types are usually associated with being manly or well disciplined.
Fire - Usually mammals.
Flying - Half of all Flying types are based on Birds, about a fifth are based on winged Arthropods and third on miscellaneous creatures.
Ghost - Based on creepy and scary myths.
Grass - Most are based on plants, fungi, lizards and Mammals that eat grass.
Ground - Pokémon that live in the ground, are known for digging, live far away from water (deserts) or have a lot to do with land.
Ice - Based on Animals that are known for living in cold regions.
Normal - Usually Mammals or Birds.
Poison - Pure and Primary Poison types tend to be based on either disgusting or poisons/venomous creatures.
Psychic - Pure Psychic types can influence others will by creating illusions or hypnotism. They seem to be similar to Dark types, whereas Dark types will get what they want through sneakiness, Psychic types will get what they want through trickery. This also seems to be what people are confusing Fairy types for.
Rock - Tend to be either Pokémon that come from fossils or based on Rocks.
Steel - Pure and Primary Steel types are based on Man-made objects and Inorganic matter.
Water - Based on the many different creatures that live around or in the sea.

 

[Ohman177]

Wait, even though the basis for Trapinch-line are antlions, Flygon looks draconic enough, I thought. You guys actually think it does not? Not its basis, its actual design. (Debates about whether stuff like Ampharos deserves the type I understand, and even Vibrava looking out of place with its clearly insectid design, but Flygon? Looks as dragon-like as it gets I thought)

My point I guess is, just because something is based off something real, doesn't mean it has to go through with it to the end. But that's kinda obvious with fish turning to octopuses etc.

We all agree it looks dragon. Some, including me, just think that it shouldn't.
Also I think I read a post on this thread saying dialga and palkia weren't dragons. They look pretty dragon like to me, idk about you guys.

 

[Their Goominess]

Psychic - Pure Psychic types can influence others will by creating illusions or hypnotism. They seem to be similar to Dark types, whereas Dark types will get what they want through sneakiness, Psychic types will get what they want through trickery. This also seems to be what people are confusing Fairy types for.

I'm sorry but the Psychic type is much more based on having psychic abilities, being incredibly smart. The illusions-trickery part is more a sub-part of Psychic, with the psychic abilities and smartness being much more prominent.

If Fairy types have basis in folklore (please please please GF), then there are going to be fairies that influence others, trick them, create illusions to confuse people. The Trickery part you mentioned is more like a folklore-fairy thing.

 

[professorlight]

Wait, even though the basis for Trapinch-line are antlions, Flygon looks draconic enough, I thought. You guys actually think it does not? Not its basis, its actual design. (Debates about whether stuff like Ampharos deserves the type I understand, and even Vibrava looking out of place with its clearly insectid design, but Flygon? Looks as dragon-like as it gets I thought)

My point I guess is, just because something is based off something real, doesn't mean it has to go through with it to the end. But that's kinda obvious with fish turning to octopuses etc.

Wait, even though the basis for Trapinch-line are antlions, Flygon looks draconic enough, I thought. You guys actually think it does not? Not its basis, its actual design. (Debates about whether stuff like Ampharos deserves the type I understand, and even Vibrava looking out of place with its clearly insectid design, but Flygon? Looks as dragon-like as it gets I thought)

My point I guess is, just because something is based off something real, doesn't mean it has to go through with it to the end. But that's kinda obvious with fish turning to octopuses etc.

We all agree it looks dragon. Some, including me, just think that it shouldn't.
Also I think I read a post on this thread saying dialga and palkia weren't dragons. They look pretty dragon like to me, idk about you guys.

EHEM...

Eh? The whole line are Antlions, just reptilian.

Larva, famous for the sand traps it builds to keep prey from escaping:

Adult:

Adult adult:

[img width=400 height=]http://www.cmstudio.com/image/Parasaurolophus014.jpg[/img] + [img width=400 height=]http://www.cutehomepets.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/adult-antlion.jpg[/img]

And no, I won't stop with the parasaurolophus thing. Nuuh-uh.

I think dialga and palkia are dragon because of their unbridled power and epic (the real word, not the internet crap) origins. I think it makes sense, but they would have been better as a psychic trio:

dialga = psychic/dragon
palkia = psychic/dragon
giratina = psychic/ghost

because, if psychic has a connection with outer space, why not extend it to the concepts of space and time? their water and steel typings are a load of bullshit to me, they focused too much in making them different by anchoring them to the diamond and pearl (a connection so shaky, you lokk at it a little hard ant it goes away), and I think that's the dumbest decision GF ever made.

 

[Flys Gone 2071]

I believe that they were making an antlion that controls sandstorms in some way but after some research (not the lack of), they saw the connection to the DRAGONfly so they decided to mix the antlion to a dragon. Flygon is more Dragon than Bug because its design look a lot like a dragon and its control over sand is what makes it Ground. They should have done Trapinch and Vibrava Ground/Bug and then change Flygon's Bug-type into Dragon.

Flygon is Dragon-like so I don't see the point of "excluding" it from the "definition". Even so, Kingdra, Altaria and Garchomp look little like a Dragon but they have a legend. I believe the definition should be "a dragon or dragon-like creature or if it is based on a myth of a dragon". At least that for fully evolved non-legendary Pokemon.

 

[professorlight]

...
I believe the definition should be "a dragon or dragon-like creature or if it is based on a myth of a dragon". At least that for fully evolved non-legendary Pokemon.

Okay. *sigh*. Let me try again:

Not this again.

"Dragons" never had a set anatomy in mythology.

What we think of as "Eastern" dragons typically combined characteristics of snakes, dogs and fish.

European dragons could be chimeras of reptile, bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, even insect. Many older portrayals of dragons are dog-headed, chicken-like creatures, or even like bat-winged rats.

Native American folklore had dragon-like monsters who wavered from clawed snakes to horned giant leeches.

It DOES just mean big, epic, scary, vaguely reptilian monster. Always did.

With only a change:

"dragon" includes at least one of this characteristics: big, epic looking/mythic based, scary, reptilian, incredibly powerful."​

 

[Metalizard]

I have already said once that I think the whole Trapinch line should be changed to this:
Trapinch -> Bug/Ground
Vibrava -> Bug/Flying
Flygon -> Bug/Dragon

Flygon is a perfect mix of an insect with a dragon. Vibrava not so much... So, obviously, I'm against the opinion that Yanmega should be Bug/Dragon...

As for Dialga and Palkia, they look a bit draconic but they're more similar to dinosaurs, I think. Still, that's enough for me to justify their Dragon-typing...
I mean, Haxorus is just a dinosaur, Ken Sugimori confirmed it himself. Yet, it is pure Dragon-type and I don't mind it at all...

 

[Ohman177]

Dragon type should belong to pokemon who: (keep in mind that dragon does not only mean Western Dragon and that reptilian includes dinosaurs)
Look dragonlike/reptilian
Are at least partly based off/inspired by a dragon/reptilian.
Are at least partly named after a dragon/reptilian

That encompasses all dragon types we have currently and should contain all future ones. BTW dialga and palkia's looks are partly based off dinos and giratina is a basilisk so that's why they're dragon. None of this "being epic or super strong" stuff. I think that's total crazy talk honestly and isn't needed to justify any of the dragons we have.

 

[professorlight]

Dragon type should belong to pokemon who: (keep in mind that dragon does not only mean Western Dragon and that reptilian includes dinosaurs)
Look dragonlike/reptilian
Are at least partly based off/inspired by a dragon/reptilian.
Are at least partly named after a dragon/reptilian

That encompasses all dragon types we have currently and should contain all future ones. BTW dialga and palkia's looks are partly based off dinos and giratina is a basilisk so that's why they're dragon.

As I said, "dragon" includes at least one of this characteristics:

big
dragonite, rayquaza, dialga, palkia, giratina, reshiram, zekrom, kyurem
epic/imponent
latias, latios, rayquaza, dialga, palkia, giratina, haxorus, hydreigon, reshiram, zekrom, kyurem, megaampharos (speculation)
mythic based
dratini>dragonair (serpentine dragons), dragonite (western dragon), rayquaza (eastern dragon/quetzalcoatl), altaria (peng), bagon>shelgon>salamence (western dragon), gible>gabite>garchomp (land sharks), giratina (bassilisk), druddigon (western dragon/dragon gargoyle), deino>zweilous>hydreigon (hydra), reshiram (western dragon), noivern (wyvern)
scary/fierce looking
salamence, rayquaza, garchomp, dialga, palkia, giratina, haxorus, druddigon, hydreigon, reshiram, zekrom, kyurem
reptilian
vibrava>flygon (dinosaur), haxorus (dinosaur), a lot of non-dragon, mostly dinosaur-inspired pokemon
incredibly powerful
dragonair, dragonite, kingdra, salamence, latias, latios, rayquaza, dialga, palkia, giratina, hydreigon, reshiram, zekrom, kyurem, megampharos? (specualtion)

As you can see, most dragons share a few qualities, but some are just in one category

None of this "being epic or super strong" stuff. I think that's total BS honestly and isn't needed to justify any of the dragons we have.

I'm sorry, I seem to have misread. BS? Wanna rephrase that?

 

[Ohman177]

Dragon type should belong to pokemon who: (keep in mind that dragon does not only mean Western Dragon and that reptilian includes dinosaurs)
Look dragonlike/reptilian
Are at least partly based off/inspired by a dragon/reptilian.
Are at least partly named after a dragon/reptilian

That encompasses all dragon types we have currently and should contain all future ones. BTW dialga and palkia's looks are partly based off dinos and giratina is a basilisk so that's why they're dragon.

As I said, "dragon" includes at least one of this characteristics:

big
dragonite, rayquaza, dialga, palkia, giratina, reshiram, zekrom, kyurem
epic/imponent
latias, latios, rayquaza, dialga, palkia, giratina, haxorus, hydreigon, reshiram, zekrom, kyurem, megaampharos (speculation)
mythic based
dratini>dragonair (serpentine dragons), dragonite (western dragon), rayquaza (eastern dragon/quetzalcoatl), altaria (peng), bagon>shelgon>salamence (western dragon), gible>gabite>garchomp (land sharks), giratina (bassilisk), druddigon (western dragon/dragon gargoyle), deino>zweilous>hydreigon (hydra), reshiram (western dragon), noivern (wyvern)
scary/fierce looking
salamence, rayquaza, garchomp, dialga, palkia, giratina, haxorus, druddigon, hydreigon, reshiram, zekrom, kyurem
reptilian
vibrava>flygon (dinosaur), haxorus (dinosaur), a lot of non-dragon, mostly dinosaur-inspired pokemon
incredibly powerful
dragonair, dragonite, kingdra, salamence, latias, latios, rayquaza, dialga, palkia, giratina, hydreigon, reshiram, zekrom, kyurem, megampharos? (specualtion)

As you can see, most dragons share a few qualities, but some are just in one category

None of this "being epic or super strong" stuff. I think that's total BS honestly and isn't needed to justify any of the dragons we have.

I'm sorry, I seem to have misread. BS? Wanna rephrase that?

I literally see no point in what you just wrote. All you did was describe some traits of the dragons. The things that characterize a dragon type are what I listed. Also, Garchomp is a shark mixed with this dinosaur I can't remember the name of. And yeah, BS was a bit much but honestly there is no point in making mythic and epic a category because it is useless. They're mythic and epic because of their individual traits as pokemon. This is really hard to describe but basically they're mythic because they're dragons but not dragon type because they're mythic. You're just coming up with categories that are way to specified. And big, really??? There are plenty of pokemon that are big that aren't dragons.
This is about traits unique to dragon type pokemon that make them dragon type. ANYTHING can be scary/mythic/big.

 

[professorlight]

As I said, "dragon" includes at least one of this characteristics:

big
dragonite, rayquaza, dialga, palkia, giratina, reshiram, zekrom, kyurem
epic/imponent
latias, latios, rayquaza, dialga, palkia, giratina, haxorus, hydreigon, reshiram, zekrom, kyurem, megaampharos (speculation)
mythic based
dratini>dragonair (serpentine dragons), dragonite (western dragon), rayquaza (eastern dragon/quetzalcoatl), altaria (peng), bagon>shelgon>salamence (western dragon), gible>gabite>garchomp (land sharks), giratina (bassilisk), druddigon (western dragon/dragon gargoyle), deino>zweilous>hydreigon (hydra), reshiram (western dragon), noivern (wyvern)
scary/fierce looking
salamence, rayquaza, garchomp, dialga, palkia, giratina, haxorus, druddigon, hydreigon, reshiram, zekrom, kyurem
reptilian
vibrava>flygon (dinosaur), haxorus (dinosaur), a lot of non-dragon, mostly dinosaur-inspired pokemon
incredibly powerful
dragonair, dragonite, kingdra, salamence, latias, latios, rayquaza, dialga, palkia, giratina, hydreigon, reshiram, zekrom, kyurem, megampharos? (specualtion)

As you can see, most dragons share a few qualities, but some are just in one category


I'm sorry, I seem to have misread. BS? Wanna rephrase that?

I literally see no point in what you just wrote. All you did was describe some traits of the dragons. The things that characterize a dragon type are what I listed. Also, Garchomp is a shark mixed with this dinosaur I can't remember the name of. And yeah, BS was a bit much but honestly there is no point in making mythic and epic a category because it is useless. They're mythic and epic because of their individual traits as pokemon. This is really hard to describe but basically they're mythic because they're dragons but not dragon type because they're mythic. You're just coming up with categories that are way to specified. And big, really??? There are plenty of pokemon that are big that aren't dragons.
This is about traits unique to dragon type pokemon that make them dragon type. ANYTHING can be scary/mythic/big.

Garchomp is a land shark, I don't think it resembles any dinosaur...
You may have a point about big and scary, but mythic in this context is "something mythical", such as dragons, bassilisk, the peng, you name it; yes, many non-dragon pokemon might be inspired on mythical creatures (charizard, moltres) so it's not entirely exclusive to the dragon type, but it still is a prevalent characteristic, a common link between the dragon types, hile non-dragon pokemon don't have that common link, and I think that's what connects dragon type pokemon as dragon type pokemon.
Your proposed classification is too narrow and takes "dragon" literally, and we both know GF is NEVER so straightforward. How do you explain latias and latios then?, dialga and palkia? megaampharos? the many non dragon pokemon that learn dragon moves?
You just corrected bogleech's classification, which I adopted and corrected, too, and that's a good thing. That theory still explains all dragon type pokemon, but it uses fewer elements, and according to occam's razor, such a theory is better now. Not all dragon pokemon are A, and not all dragon pokemon are B, but if all dragon pokemon are A and/or B, then we know now what are dragon pokemon. The same method can be used to define the other types, there's never a single characteristic in a type, they usually take elements from other things, and also, many pokemon are of a certain type in an unofficial way, so, they also sort of need to be included, which this theory does, in the manner of the dinosaur inspired pokemon learning dragon-type moves included in reptilian your theory does not do that.

The new list:

epic/imponent
latias, latios, rayquaza, dialga, palkia, giratina, haxorus, hydreigon, reshiram, zekrom, kyurem, megaampharos (speculation)
mythic based
dratini>dragonair (serpentine dragons), dragonite (western dragon), rayquaza (eastern dragon/quetzalcoatl), altaria (peng), bagon>shelgon>salamence (western dragon), gible>gabite>garchomp (land sharks), giratina (bassilisk), druddigon (western dragon/dragon gargoyle), deino>zweilous>hydreigon (hydra), reshiram (western dragon), noivern (wyvern)
reptilian
vibrava>flygon (dinosaur), haxorus (dinosaur), a lot of non-dragon, mostly dinosaur-inspired pokemon
incredibly powerful
dragonair, dragonite, kingdra, salamence, latias, latios, rayquaza, dialga, palkia, giratina, hydreigon, reshiram, zekrom, kyurem, megampharos? (speculation)

Take a look at the list, without prejudice, analyze each of the pokemon and look the traits in them, it's not prefect, but it comes a long way to describe what makes a dragon type.
Also, you may have noticed that most pokemon in the "big" list were legendary dragon pokemon, Is that a coincidence? there are not too many pokemon that massive, and many are dragon type.

 

[Ohman177]

I literally see no point in what you just wrote. All you did was describe some traits of the dragons. The things that characterize a dragon type are what I listed. Also, Garchomp is a shark mixed with this dinosaur I can't remember the name of. And yeah, BS was a bit much but honestly there is no point in making mythic and epic a category because it is useless. They're mythic and epic because of their individual traits as pokemon. This is really hard to describe but basically they're mythic because they're dragons but not dragon type because they're mythic. You're just coming up with categories that are way to specified. And big, really??? There are plenty of pokemon that are big that aren't dragons.
This is about traits unique to dragon type pokemon that make them dragon type. ANYTHING can be scary/mythic/big.

Garchomp is a land shark, I don't think it resembles any dinosaur...
You may have a point about big and scary, but mythic in this context is "something mythical", such as dragons, bassilisk, the peng, you name it; yes, many non-dragon pokemon might be inspired on mythical creatures (charizard, moltres) so it's not entirely exclusive to the dragon type, but it still is a prevalent characteristic, a common link between the dragon types, hile non-dragon pokemon don't have that common link, and I think that's what connects dragon type pokemon as dragon type pokemon.
Your proposed classification is too narrow and takes "dragon" literally, and we both know GF is NEVER so straightforward. How do you explain latias and latios then?, dialga and palkia? megaampharos? the many non dragon pokemon that learn dragon moves?
You just corrected bogleech's classification, which I adopted and corrected, too, and that's a good thing. That theory still explains all dragon type pokemon, but it uses fewer elements, and according to occam's razor, such a theory is better now. Not all dragon pokemon are A, and not all dragon pokemon are B, but if all dragon pokemon are A and/or B, then we know now what are dragon pokemon. The same method can be used to define the other types, there's never a single characteristic in a type, they usually take elements from other things, and also, many pokemon are of a certain type in an unofficial way, so, they also sort of need to be included, which this theory does, in the manner of the dinosaur inspired pokemon learning dragon-type moves included in reptilian your theory does not do that.

The new list:

epic/imponent
latias, latios, rayquaza, dialga, palkia, giratina, haxorus, hydreigon, reshiram, zekrom, kyurem, megaampharos (speculation)
mythic based
dratini>dragonair (serpentine dragons), dragonite (western dragon), rayquaza (eastern dragon/quetzalcoatl), altaria (peng), bagon>shelgon>salamence (western dragon), gible>gabite>garchomp (land sharks), giratina (bassilisk), druddigon (western dragon/dragon gargoyle), deino>zweilous>hydreigon (hydra), reshiram (western dragon), noivern (wyvern)
reptilian
vibrava>flygon (dinosaur), haxorus (dinosaur), a lot of non-dragon, mostly dinosaur-inspired pokemon
incredibly powerful
dragonair, dragonite, kingdra, salamence, latias, latios, rayquaza, dialga, palkia, giratina, hydreigon, reshiram, zekrom, kyurem, megampharos? (speculation)

Take a look at the list, without prejudice, analyze each of the pokemon and look the traits in them, it's not prefect, but it comes a long way to describe what makes a dragon type.
Also, you may have noticed that most pokemon in the "big" list were legendary dragon pokemon, Is that a coincidence? there are not too many pokemon that massive, and many are dragon type.

I'm going to make a much for detailed response to this but for now I'll just tell you that
Garchomp- Dromaeosauridae and hammer head.
Palkia- Oviraptor
Dialga- Brachytrachelopan
Latios/Latias- Jet plane crossed with dragon.

 

[Metalizard]

I'm with Ohman177 on this. Those categories with guys came up with are all BS. Sorry, but it's true. I mean:
big? epic? mythic? scary? powerful? Are you guys serious??
There's lot of big pokémon that are not dragons. And the tallest pokémon are usually that tall because they have a serpentine body, not because they're Dragon-type.
Most cover legendaries are Epic. Even some non-legendary pokémon can be epic looking. I don't particularly like Xerneas but it certainly is epic. You can't get much more epic than that... Is it Dragon-type? No. It's actually the opposite...
Mythic... Not only are most legendary pokémon mythic or based on real world myths, even a lot of non-legendary pokémon are based on mythic creatures... And they're not Dragon-type...
Scary or frightning? Basically everything that can learn Scary Face is scary. lol. Actually, you could say Dragons are not the scary-type by default. Those are the Ghost-types...
Finally... Incredibly Powerful? I'm not even say much about this. Two names: Arceus, Mewtwo. That is all.

As simplistic or overly specific as it sounds, what Ohman177 said is the better definition for what should be a Dragon-type.
.Based on or at least have some features of dragons/other similar reptiles
.Named after dragons

Period. It's called Dragon-type. If this is not what Dragon-types are supposed to be, then screw the Dragon-type.

If you don't agree or if this is not what GF had in mind when they decided to create the Dragon-type, then they shouldn't have created the type in the first place. Stop calling them Dragon-types and tell GF to change the name of the type. It's outrageously ridiculous...

 

[professorlight]

I'm with Ohman177 on this. Those categories with guys came up with are all BS. Sorry, but it's true. I mean:
big? epic? mythic? scary? powerful? Are you guys serious??
There's lot of big pokémon that are not dragons. And the tallest pokémon are usually that tall because they have a serpentine body, not because they're Dragon-type.
Most cover legendaries are Epic. Even some non-legendary pokémon can be epic looking. I don't particularly like Xerneas but it certainly is epic. You can't get much more epic than that... Is it Dragon-type? No. It's actually the opposite...
Mythic... Not only are most legendary pokémon mythic or based on real world myths, even a lot of non-legendary pokémon are based on mythic creatures... And they're not Dragon-type...
Scary or frightning? Basically everything that can learn Scary Face is scary. lol. Actually, you could say Dragons are not the scary-type by default. Those are the Ghost-types...
Finally... Incredibly Powerful? I'm not even say much about this. Two names: Arceus, Mewtwo. That is all.

As simplistic or overly specific as it sounds, what Ohman177 said is the better definition for what should be a Dragon-type.
.Based on or at least have some features of dragons/other similar reptiles
.Named after dragons

Period. It's called Dragon-type. If this is not what Dragon-types are supposed to be, then screw the Dragon-type.

If you don't agree or if this is not what GF had in mind when they decided to create the Dragon-type, then they shouldn't have created the type in the first place. Stop calling them Dragon-types and tell GF to change the name of the type. It's outrageously ridiculous...

Give me proof. make a list like this (which was already changed to not include big and scary as ohman said, and I offered a reasoning to keep mythic):

epic/imponent
latias, latios, rayquaza, dialga, palkia, giratina, haxorus, hydreigon, reshiram, zekrom, kyurem, megaampharos (speculation)
mythic based
dratini>dragonair (serpentine dragons), dragonite (western dragon), rayquaza (eastern dragon/quetzalcoatl), altaria (peng), bagon>shelgon>salamence (western dragon), gible>gabite>garchomp (land sharks), giratina (bassilisk), druddigon (western dragon/dragon gargoyle), deino>zweilous>hydreigon (hydra), reshiram (western dragon), noivern (wyvern)
reptilian
vibrava>flygon (dinosaur), haxorus (dinosaur), a lot of non-dragon, mostly dinosaur-inspired pokemon
incredibly powerful
dragonair, dragonite, kingdra, salamence, latias, latios, rayquaza, dialga, palkia, giratina, hydreigon, reshiram, zekrom, kyurem, megampharos? (speculation)

And THIS is not how you discuss something, you two, I'm deeply disappointed. I'm presenting you a reasonable argument and all you can say about it is words like BS and this jewel here:

"Period. It's called Dragon-type. If this is not what Dragon-types are supposed to be, then screw the Dragon-type.

If you don't agree or if this is not what GF had in mind when they decided to create the Dragon-type, then they shouldn't have created the type in the first place. Stop calling them Dragon-types and tell GF to change the name of the type. It's outrageously ridiculous..."

If you flip out every time you have to defend your position in an argument and say that if you are not right, what you are discussing shouldn't exist, then we have nothing to discuss. If I wanted to discuss it with someone who might say that, I'd go to a school and grab a 5 year old, and even then, he might be more reasonable.

You won't be seeing me around here anymore, good luck.